2

Let $\mathbb H^n$ be the $n$-dimensional hyperbolic space. Given a sequence $u_0,\ldots,u_m$ of points in $\mathbb H^n$ and $t_0,\ldots,t_m$ nonnegative real numbers whose sum is $1$, let us define the convex combination $t_0u_0+\ldots+t_mu_m$ by induction on $m$:

  • Case $m=1$. We define $t_0u_0+t_1u_0$ to be the only point $x$ of the geodesic arc $[u_0,u_1]$ such that $d(x,u_0)=t_1d(u_0,u_1)$
  • Suppose such combinations have been defined for all sequences of $m+1$ points of $\mathbb H^n$. Let $u_0,\ldots,u_{m+1}$ be a sequence of points of $\mathbb H^n$ and $t_0,\ldots,t_{m+1}$ be nonnegative reals whose sum is $1$. If $t_{m+1}=1$, we define $0u_0+\ldots+0u_m+1u_{m+1}:=u_{m+1}$. Otherwise $1-t_{m+1}\neq0$, and $$\sum_{i=0}^m\frac{t_i}{1-t_{m+1}}=\sum_{i=0}^m\frac{t_i}{t_0+\cdots+t_m}=1,$$ and hence $\frac{t_0}{1-t_{m+1}}u_0+\cdots+\frac{t_m}{1-t_{m+1}}u_m$ is defined, and we define $t_0u_0+\cdots+t_{m+1}u_{m+1}$ to be the convex combination $$(t_0+\cdots+t_m)\left(\frac{t_0}{1-t_{m+1}}u_0+\cdots+\frac{t_m}{1-t_{m+1}}u_m\right)+t_{m+1}u_{m+1},$$ using the previous case.

I want to know whether this construction depends on the order of the sequence $u_0,\ldots,u_m$.

It is easy to prove that $t_0u_0+t_1u_1=t_1u_1+t_0u_0$. Using this I have proved that if $t_0u_0+t_1u_1+t_2u_2=t_0u_0+t_2u_2+t_1u_1$ holds for all convex combinations of three points, then the convex combinations of a finite sequence of points in $\mathbb H^n$ does not depend on the order of the sequence.

However cannot see why $t_0u_0+t_1u_1+t_2u_2=t_0u_0+t_2u_2+t_1u_1$ holds. It is enough to prove this in $\mathbb H^2$. My first question is: is this true?

I have managed to prove this assignment is differentiable, and an smooth embedding in the interior of $\Delta^m$ if $u_0,\ldots u_m$ are in general position in $\mathbb H^n$; this means they do not belong to a hyperbolic subspace of dimension $\leq m-1$.

My second question is: if the first question is false, is there a way to define convex combinations of points of $\mathbb H^n$ which does not depend on the order, it is preserved under isometries, and when the points are in general position the restriction of this function is an embedding?

2 Answers2

2

The best way to do this is to use the Lorentzian model of the hyperbolic space. Let $L^+\subset R^{n,1}$ denote the future cone of time-like vectors $v$, $\langle v, v\rangle <0$ (I am using the negative of the bilinear form from the wikipedia article). The projection of $L^+$ to $RP^n$ is then the Klein model of the hyperbolic space $H^n$. Any finite subset $p_1,...,p_k\in H^n$ corresponds to a set of vectors $v_1,...,v_k\in L^+$. The affine convex combination of these vectors is $$ {\mathbf v}=\sum_{i=1}^k t_i v_i, $$ where $t_i\ge 0, \sum_i t_i=1$. Lastly, project ${\mathbf v}$ to $p\in H^n$. This is your convex combination of points $p_1,...,p_k\in H^n$. The construction is clearly independent of the ordering of the points.

Claim. If the vectors $v_1,...,v_k$ are linearly independent then the map ${\mathbf t}\mapsto p$ is 1-1.

Proof. Since the vectors $v_1,...,v_k$ are linearly independent, the affine $k$-dimensional subspace $A$ which they determine in $R^{n,1}$ does not contain the origin. Hence, the projection $A\to RP^n$ is 1-1. The map $$ {\mathbf t}\mapsto {\mathbf v} $$ is injective (again, by the linear independence of the vectors) and its image is contained in $A$. Hence, the composition $$ {\mathbf t}\mapsto {\mathbf v} \mapsto p $$ is 1-1. qed

The last thing to note is that linear independence of the vectors $v_1,...,v_k$ is equivalent to the property that the corresponding points $p_1,...,p_k\in H^n$ span a $k$-dimensional hyperbolic subspace in $H^n$ (i.e. are not contained in a hyperbolic subspace of dimension $< k$).

Moishe Kohan
  • 111,854
  • I had thought of using the hyperboloid model and exactly the same construction but instead of projecting to $\mathbb RP^n$ I projected back to the hyperboloid through the origin. I thought it unlikely this would coincide with my construction, but I guess by what you're saying they indeed do. I don't see why you're projecting to $\mathbb RP^n$ though. – Camilo Arosemena Serrato Apr 13 '19 at 16:06
  • @CamiloArosemena-Serrato: Projecting to the hyperboloid is equivalent to projecting to the projective space, using one over the other is just a personal preference. Compare my answer here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2170463/centroid-of-a-triangle-in-the-poincare-disk?noredirect=1&lq=1 – Moishe Kohan Apr 13 '19 at 16:09
  • The hyperboloid model has a nice distance formula though; I'll check if this definition coincides with mine using that formula. – Camilo Arosemena Serrato Apr 13 '19 at 16:13
  • The main issue using the construction you point out using the hyperboloid model I have is that I wasn't able to prove that it was an embedding when restricted to the interior of $\Delta^m$ if you took points in general position. – Camilo Arosemena Serrato Apr 13 '19 at 16:15
  • @CamiloArosemena-Serrato: Projective space model has nice distance formula too. The proof that your construction equals mine is just induction. And avoid the projection to the hyperboloid until the end of the induction, it just complicates your computations. – Moishe Kohan Apr 13 '19 at 16:16
  • Your definition does not coincide with the one I gave. The isometry between the Klein disk model and the half-space model is a rational function. Thus your definition can be expressed with a rational function in the half-space model as you use linear combinations. However, in this model we have $(1-t)(0,1)+t(0,2)=(0,2^t)$ for all $t\in[0,1], and this expression is not rational. – Camilo Arosemena Serrato Apr 13 '19 at 20:29
  • I meant we have $(1-t)(0,1)+t(0,2)=(0,2^t)$ for all $t\in [0,1]$ in the half space model of the hyperbolic plane with my definition – Camilo Arosemena Serrato Apr 13 '19 at 20:40
  • I did this construction working with the paraboloid model only. Thanks. – Camilo Arosemena Serrato Apr 27 '19 at 05:59
0

The answer to this question is: No and Yes.

No: As you defined it, the convex combination depends on the order in which you do the averages.

Let us define the iteration function $I:H^2\times[0,1]\to H^2$ to be such that $I(x,y,\alpha)$ is the (unique) point in the geodesic between $x$ and $y$ which is at a distance $\alpha d(x,y)$ from $x$ and at a distance $(1 - \alpha) d(x,y)$ from $y$.

The question asked, for example, if whenever $\alpha_1 + \alpha_2 + \alpha_3 = 1$, $\alpha_i \ge 0$, do we have

$$I(I(x_1,x_2,\frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_1 + \alpha_2}), x_3, \alpha_1 + \alpha_2) = I(I(x_2,x_3,\frac{\alpha_2}{\alpha_2 + \alpha_3}), x_1, \alpha_2 + \alpha_3)?$$

The answer is no.

But also, Yes. If you define it correctly, you can get something like what you are seeking: a center of mass.

See: Saul Stahl, "Mass in the hyperbolic plane". Briefly, given two point-masses $(X, x)$ and $(Y,y)$, where $X,Y$ are in the hyperbolic plane and $x, y \ge 0$ are real numbers (the mass values), one may define the centroid $(C, c) = (X,x) \ast (Y,y)$, so that $C$ is the unique point in the geodesic between $X$ and $Y$ such that

$$x \sinh XC = y \sinh YC $$

and $c$ is given by

$$c = x \cosh XC + y \cosh YC $$

($XC$, $YC$, $XY$ are distances between the points)

It then turns out that $\ast$ is associative and commutative. One may then define the convex combination as the point given by the centroid $(u_1, t_1) \ast \dots \ast (u_m, t_m)$.

Let me attach the following image, for illustration. Let us look at the hyperboloid model $H^2$ in Minkowski space $M^3$ with bilinear form $\langle x, y \rangle = x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 - x_3 y_3$. Let $u_1 = (0,0,1)$, $u_2 = (\sinh 1,0,\cosh 1)$ and $u_3 = (0, \sinh 1, \cosh1)$. Let us then draw all the centroids $(u_1, t_1) \ast (u_2, t_2) \ast (u_3, t_3)$ for all $t_1 + t_2 + t_3 = 1$ in steps of $0.03$. We get this:

convex combinations in the hyperbolic plane